RESERVOIR MANAGEMENT FOR WATERFLOODS

R. BAKER

this article begins on the next page F

Reservoir Management for Waterfloods Richard Baker has worked on a number of reservoir characterization/reservoir simulation projects world wide in Russia, Indonesia, South America, Middle East and North America. He is currently president of Epic Consulting Services. He has taught courses in reservoir characterization and reservoir simulation both in Canada and internationally. He previously was a senior reservoir engineer at Shell and Husky Oil. He has interests in reservoir management, naturally fractured reservoirs, reservoir characterization, horizontal wells, EOR and reservoir
simulation. He is specifically interested in the use of horizontal wells for improving reservoir characterization and sweep improvement for EOR floods. And is currently working on: use of horizontal wells characterize a naturally fractured reservoir and designing a CO2 flood in West Texas, integrating seismic data, fracture data and horizontal wells to improve liquid recovery from a naturally fractured gas condensate reservoir in Canada, geostatistics, simulation history matching and history
matching pressure transient to characterize a tight gas lenticular reservoir and then understand current horizontal well performance, the use of a horizontal well and reservoir characterization to improve vertical sweep efficiency in a waterfloods and hydrocarbon miscible floods in Canada. He is on the editorial review board of the the JCPT. He obtained a M.Sc. degree in chemical engineering from University of Calgary and B.Sc. in mechanical engineering from University of Alberta. Abstract Waterflood projects account for over half the current
Canadian and U.S. oil production, so the reservoir management of waterfloods is a key issue. There are numerous published textbooks and simulation methods for the design of waterfloods, however the literature has to a great extent been silent on reservoir surveillance to help monitor and improve existing waterfloods. Often the -operating+ engineer has a rate and reserve forecast that often over estimates performance. When comparing actual to predicted waterflood performance, the typical conclusion is that the forecast input data is based on averaged data and is therefore too homogeneous.
Consequently, the forecast can be of limited use to the reservoir management team. The methods presented here emphasize practical uses and their ties to field data and geology. Production and pressure surveillance data can implicitly account for a useful scale of heterogeneity. Therefore this data can be extremely useful, if used properly, in developing changes in operational strategy that can maximize recovery. This paper describes a simple, direct approach to the reservoir management and analysis of waterfloods. This approach is used in preparation for simulation studies, to quantify the
factors limiting recovery and determine if the oil recovery can be improved. Typical Objectives for Analytical Work In general the questions that need to be addressed in order are: 1. What is the OOIP? 2. Where is the current OIP? 3. What are the factors limiting recovery? 4. Can we improve oil recovery economically? 5. How do we improve recovery? There has been a tendency for engineers to proceed with points four and five first and bypass points one to three. This is a major mistake. Most often, reservoir or simulation studies can have non-unique solutions. For example, it is easy to
interpret a waterflood failure as being due to poor displacement efficiency when actually poor volumetric sweep efficiency may be the primary reason for the problems. Therefore, to reduce the chances of misinterpretation it is important to understand the amount and distribution of original and current oil in place. The understanding of flow patterns and the distribution of movable oil saturations are key to limiting the chances of misinterpretation. A fundamental geological/petrophysical analysis is a cornerstone of good reservoir engineering analysis. However, geological studies alone do
not conclusively quantify the reserve and oil rate increases that can be achieved by optimizing the existing waterfloods. While this paper concentrates on the engineering criteria, it is implicitly assumed that a thorough geological/petrophysical study is either done or being done concurrently. A geological/ petrophysical study is key in understanding the initial question: What is the OOIP? It is absolutely critical that the engineer develops an understanding of the reservoir geology as they proceed. In particular the engineer should concentrate on megascopic permeability and porosity
trends, as well as reservoir continuity. In other words the engineer should concentrate on hydraulic flow units. Surveillance Level This level of analysis should start from the large scale and proceed to the smaller scale. The methodology will probably identify general opportunities and/or problems first and then, as the analysis proceeds, it will become less general and more specific with respect to the scale of specific wells and how to correct problems. There is an observed tendency for inexperienced engineers to jump from the field level of surveillance to the well level, bypassing pod
and pattern levels, in order to speed up the study to develop well specific recommendations. I believe this is a major oversight because most waterfloods display macroscopic inter-pattern flows and non-uniform volumetric sweep efficiencies. It is important to know these flows to determine the current OIP and its distribution. Neglecting injector/producer flow patterns means that recommended well workovers can be very hit and miss due to the fact that current saturation distribution is not understood. Starting at the field level for surveillance provides a baseline so that engineers can
differentiate between poor and good performance. Surveillance on an individual well basis is excellent to get very well specific recommendations after the reservoir flow patterns are understood. Discussion of Methods A single technique in isolation is not generally indicative because different parameters can cause similar plot signatures. Combining surveillance plots/techniques is recommended so that a better understanding of the reservoir performance is obtained. This methodology of combining plots and analysis techniques reduces the non-uniqueness problems. We recommend evaluating the
following performance plots/ techniques initially for the field, then for patterns, and finally, for individual wells. 1. Composite reservoir performance chart [fluid rate, oil rate, WOR, GOR, cumulative oil and water, and well count vs. time] with clearly annotated changes in operational strategy. (Figure 1) 2. Log of oil rate vs. cumulative oil production. 3. Oil recovery (% OOIP) vs. cumulative net water injected/ movable pore volume (conformance plot). 4.
Oil recovery (% OOIP) vs. cumulative water injected/ hydrocarbon pore volumes (RF vs. HCPVI). 5. Calculation of current and ultimate Volumetric Sweep Efficiency using 6. Calculation of average throughput rate.
 Reservoir Management
for Waterfloods
Richard Baker has worked on a num-
ber of reservoir characterization/reser-
voir simulation projects world wide in
Russia, Indonesia, South America,
Middle East and North America. He is
currently president of Epic Consulting
Services. He has taught courses in
reservoir characterization and reservoir
simulation both in Canada and interna-
tionally. He previously was a senior
reservoir engineer at Shell and Husky Oil.
He has interests in reservoir management, naturally frac-
tured reservoirs, reservoir characterization, horizontal wells,
EaR and reservoir simulation. He is specifically interested in
the use of horizontal wells for improving reservoir characteri-
zation and sweep improvement for EaR floods. And is cur-
rently working on:
use of horizontal wells characterize a naturally fractured
reservoir and designing a CO2 flood in West Texas,
integrating seismic data, fracture data and horizontal
wells to improve liquid recovery from a naturally frac-
tured gas condensate reservoir in Canada,
geostatistics, simulation history matching and history
matching pressure transient to characterize a tight gas
lenticular reservoir and then understand current horizon-
tal well performance,
the use of a horizontal well and reservoir characterization
to improve vertical sweep efficiency in a waterfloods and
hydrocarbon miscible floods in Canada.
He is on the editorial review board of the the lePT. He
obtained a M.Sc. degree in chemical engineering from
University of Calgary and B.Sc. in mechanical engineering
from University of Alberta.
Abstract
Waterflood projects account for over half the current Canadian
and U.S. oil production, so the reservoir management of water-
floods is a key issue. There are numerous published textbooks and
simulation methods for the design of waterfloods, however the lit-
erature has to a great extent been silent on reservoir surveillance
to help monitor and improve existing waterfloods. Often the
"operating" engineer has a rate and reserve forecast that often
over estimates performance. When comparing actual to predicted
waterflood performance, the typical conclusion is that the forecast
input data is based on averaged data and is therefore too homoge-
neous. Consequently, the forecast can be of limited use to the
reservoir management team.
The methods presented here emphasize practical uses and their
ties to field data and geology. Production and pressure surveil-
lance data can implicitly account for a useful scale of heterogene-
ity. Therefore this data can be extremely useful, if used properly,
20
in developing changes in operational strategy that can maximize
recovery.
This paper describes a simple, direct approach to the reservoir
management and analysis of waterfloods. This approach is used in
preparation for simulation studies, to quantify the factors limiting
recovery and determine if the oil recovery can be improved.
Typical Objectives for Analytical Work
In general the questions that need to be addressed in order are:
1. What is the OOIP?
2. Where is the current OIP?
3. What are the factors limiting recovery?
4. Can we improve oil recovery economically?
5. How do we improve recovery?
There has been a tendency for engineers to proceed with points
four and five first and bypass points one to three. This is a major
mistake.
Most often, reservoir or simulation studies can have non-
unique solutions. For example, it is easy to interpret a waterflood
failure as being due to poor displacement efficiency when actually
poor volumetric sweep efficiency may be the primary reason for
the problems. Therefore, to reduce the chances of misinterpreta-
tion it is important to understand the amount and distribution of
original and current oil in place. The understanding of flow pat-
terns and the distribution of movable oil saturations are key to
limiting the chances of misinterpretation.
A fundamental geologicaUpetrophysical analysis is a corner-
stone of good reservoir engineering analysis. However, geological
studies alone do not conclusively quantify the reserve and oil rate
increases that can be achieved by optimizing the existing water-
floods. While this paper concentrates on the engineering criteria,
it is implicitly assumed that a thorough geologicaUpetrophysical
study is either done or being done concurrently. A geologic aU
petrophysical study is key in understanding the initial question:
What is the OOIP?
It is absolutely critical that the engineer develops an under-
standing of the reservoir geology as they proceed. In particular the
engineer should concentrate on megascopic permeability and
porosity trends, as well as reservoir continuity. In other words the
engineer should concentrate on hydraulic flow units.
Surveillance Level
This level of analysis should start from the large scale and pro-
ceed to the smaller scale. The methodology will probably identify
general opportunities and/or problems first and then, as ~e an~y
sis proceeds, it will become less general and more speCIfic WIth
respect to the scale of specific wells and how to correct problems.
There is an observed tendency for inexperienced engineers to
jump from the field level of surveillance to the well level, bypass-
ing pod and pattern levels, in order to speed up the study to devel-
op well specific recommendations. I believe this is a major over-
sight because most waterfloods display macroscopic inter-pattern
The Journal of Canadian Petroleum Technology
 Plot of Liquid/Oil Rate vs. lime INITIAL
FILLUP : A B
: ~

<~; ~j'
PRODUCTION
PRODUc:"TION. -H- .. --------,.
DECLINE PERIOD
INCLINE PERIOD
--Liquid
Rate I
~ . 10000 - - - Oi
Rate _-
.!.9~L..!2;U'!p _ _ J,I
~ 5000
o I~
Mly-53 Mly-64 Apr-75 Mlr-86 Mlr-97
Time

SECONDARY OIL
Semilog Plot of GOR, WOR vs. lime

lOT
! '
------_J
1 ! --WOR PRIMARY OIL

~ 0.1 t .~-"' ........ --

----GOR
% WATERFLOOD LIFi; .. ____ ~
0.01 I ......... ----"-'""'"'------>1 - .-f---

Mly-53 Jan-67 Oct-80 Jun-94

DECLINE (FILL-UP)
Time (8)
60/0 30% INCLINE PERIOD
I;'lot of Cum OillWater Prod vs. lime -------(19)--

~ ~=jT
1~o_yo_ __ DECLINE PERIOD
(71)
0.._
~:g 120000, ( ) ARITHMETIC AVERAGE RECOVERYI PERIOD
"M
-;; < 90000 --Cum
~,~ Water FIGURE 2: Typical successful waterflood performance.(2)
O!!!. 60000 - - Cum
30000 Oil
o 1--- hydrocarbon pore volumes (RF vs. HCPVI).
Jan-67 Oct-80 Jun-94 5. Calculation of current and ultimate Volumetric Sweep
Time
Efficiency using N p =
Emf I Ed IN
25000 Plot of Instantaneous Water Injection vs. lime
T
6. Calculation of average throughput rate.

Jan-67 Time Oct-80
FIGURE 1: Composite reServoir performance chart.
flo~s and ~on-uniform volumetric sweep efficiencies_ It is impor-
tlmt to kno~ these flows to determine the current OIP and its dis-
tributi~n': N~glec'ting injector/producer flow patterns means that
recommended well workovers can be very hit and miss due to the
fact that current saturation distribution is not understood. Starting
at the field level for surveillance provides a baseline so that engi-
neers can differentiate between poor and good performance_
Surveillance on an individual well basis is excellent to get very
well specific recommendations after the reservoir flow patterns
are understood_
Discussion of Methods
A single technique in isolation is not generally indicative
because different parameters can cause similar plot signatures_
Combining sUI;veillance plots/techniques is recommended so that
a better understanding of the reservoir performance is obtained_
This metho~ology of combining plots and analysis techniques
reduces the non-uniqueness problems_
We recommend evaluating the following performance plotsl
techniques initially for the field, then for patterns, and finally, for
individual wf!lls-
L Composite reservoir performance chart [fluid rate, oil rate,
WaR, GaR, cumulative oil and water, and well count vs.
time] with clearly annotated changes in operational strategy.
(Figure 1)
2. Log of oil rate vs_ cumulative oil production_
3. Oil recovery (% OOIP) vs_ cumulative net water injected!
movable pore volume (conformance plot)_
4. Oil.recovery (% OOIP) vs_ cumulative water injectedl
Discussion of Techniques
--hsl. It is important to generate a composite reservoir performance
water chart so that the engineer can look for large step changes in fluid
njection
production rates, oil rates, and GaR or WaR to see if operational
changes correspond to changes in performance. At this stage we
Jun-94 are looking at: What are the factors that limit recovery?
Oil Rate Plots and Analysis
Note that a simple Cartesian plot of oil rate vs. time can be very
useful in diagnosing field response and is usually a starting point.
In analyzing the response it is important to break the response into
various periods. In cases where the waterflood is started after sig-
nificant primary depletion, the common periods are the fillup,
incline, peak and decline period. In a case where there has not
been much primary depletion, there is usually a plateau period fol-
lowed by a decline period.
Initial period (fillup): This period begins with the initial water
injection and lasts until the first response to injection, represented
by a production increase. During this period, the space occupied
by gas is being filled, free gas is being brought into solution, and
reservoir pressure is being restored (Figure 2). The production rate
may continue to decline or may remain steady. As a rule of
thumb, the first increase in oil rates usually occurs after a volume
of two thirds of the initial voided pore volume of the reservoir has
been injected(l). For some fields in Oklahoma, this period, on the
average, ranges from 5% to 11 % of the total flood life, depending
on the heterogeneity of the reservoir sand, the flood pattern, well
spacing, and the volume of void space(2). In general the more het-
erogeneous and layered the system, the faster the gas collapse
occurs.
Short fillup periods and low peak oil rates during production
incline period may be indicative of channeling, bypassing and
possibly low levels of pressure depletion. These hypotheses can
be confirmed by further examining GaR and WaR trends vs.
time.
Production Incline Period: This period occurs when oil produc-
tion begins to increase through to the peak of the production rate.
During this period, the production rate is steadily increasing, and

21 The Journal of Canadian Petroleum Technology